If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

To further muddy the waters try searching the Integrated Taxonomic Information System http://www.itis.gov/

Note: You can read the Castanea article online for free on JStor. Create a free MyJstor account and save it to your bookshelf. You cannot download it for free although an institution such as a University or public library may be able to download it.

I have asked Jan Schlauer, for help to clarify the variety montana issue. Hopefully he will be able to shed more light on the situation.

Personally, I think the authors should have given the plant its own subspecies status. It having characteristics that appear in-between the northern subspecies and the southern subspecies. Those characteristics, to my mind, don't make it a good candidate for a variety of either. Of course it could have been created from an introgressive population of both subspecies, or even independently developed from the same progenitors, but that doesn't fit our taxonomic model very well. Which is why I think it is much easier to view it as its own subspecies, that way it doesn't have to fit as a sub level (variety) to either the northern subspecies or the southern.

Thanks to Not a Number, I just read the Volume 62, no. 1 Castanea issue, and the subject article. I think it does indicate that the original authors meant to publish the variety in question as, Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana. Just follow the info provided by Not a Number, and you can check it out for youselves. The caption and photo in the article are the same that Donald Schnell uses in his 2002 edition of Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada.

I still await Jan Schlauer's illumination of this taxon. I don't have near the expertise in taxonomy that he has. If this is an oversight on his part, I will be flabbergasted.

And I'm not surprised and not flabbergasted. Jan explained that the way the name was published in Castanea, that the variety name, "montana" was equally valid, if written as Sarracenia purpurea subspecies purpurea variety montana, or Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana. So, no need to change your labels. Just something to keep in mind, when dealing with the variety "montana". It was published, the way it was, in order to avoid future complications, if, at some future point, the taxonomy of Sarracenia purpurea were to be changed.

Thanks again to BaseDrifter and Goodkoalie for inspiring me to investigate this issue and learn a little more about the taxonomy of our amazing CP.

Interesting derail of this thread... though informative. Many papers have been published more recently with the usage of S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. montana (though with genetic analysis recently it may well fit more as a separate subspecific entity of its own). And as for the S. x readii discussion, not terribly long ago there was a CPN article denoting names for crosses with the various S. purpurea/rosea hybrids and the S. rubra complex: S. x readii as a type was from hybrids with S. alabamensis ssp. wherryi, and the article provided the name S. x bellii for crosses with S. leucophylla and S. rubra, more specifically with S. rubra ssp. gulfensis.

A plant collected by L.H. Reade was labeled as "Sarracenia drummondii × S. rubra = S. readi" (single "i"). This name was never published but was used as a horticultural name for the plant in a 1948 publication. A description and name was published as "S. × readii" by Bell in J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 68(1): 69. 1952

Since it was named after Reade the Latinization would be to append a single "i" thus S. readei.